Actually one requires blind faith and one is the opposite of blind faith -- evidential reasoning, where lack of evidence is an evidence against belief. As Richard Dawkins put it in The God Delusion, atheism is based on rationality and rationality alone. It's less about making the absolute claim that there is no god and more about making the claim that the probability of god or "a" god's existence is so minute, that one can say with a good degree of certitude that there is no god.

Or as Richard stated without paraphrase, "Why there almost certainly is no God".

This probablility or lack of evidence is all based on thinking that this god has to be some benevolent and participating-listening god concerned with mankinds individual lives. "If we do not see gods actions or feel gods presence visible in a mortals life then god does not exist"
A good argument for discussing the ridiculous claims by the established church.

Not a good argument for rationalizing if just some onipotent being exists. I fully agree that the probability of a god existing in the current contexts that religions would have us believe is nonsense, but I tend to think it quite possible some creature higher up an evolutionary scale exists on some level or plane that in comparison to us could be considered godlike. Does it care about us or concern itself with trite daily human activities... I am most certainly sure it does not as your statement suggests as well.

I tend to think it quite possible some creature higher up an evolutionary scale exists on some level or plane that in comparison to us could be considered godlike.

What could possibly lead you to believe this? How is this belief any more credible or rational that what any of the major organized religions believe?

The basic principle of evolutionary biology states that every organism evolves from a more basic organism. Thus this godlike creature you speak of would completely contradict this principle._________________THINGS THAT WILL BE DELETED:
1. Ghost and Watain threads
2. Image signatures
3. Content related to Necroytardonic Records
4. Memes
5. Ebonics

Not a good argument for rationalizing if just some onipotent being exists. I fully agree that the probability of a god existing in the current contexts that religions would have us believe is nonsense, but I tend to think it quite possible some creature higher up an evolutionary scale exists on some level or plane that in comparison to us could be considered godlike. Does it care about us or concern itself with trite daily human activities... I am most certainly sure it does not as your statement suggests as well.

Huh? The idea that there exists some higher power, however absent, is nothing more than a faith claim. What evidentiary support do you have for thinking this? More importantly, what questions are answered by positing the existence of some non-involved deity? Even if we accept your theory, it brings us no closer to answering questions about our origins/existence/etc., so I don't see the point of even considering something like this.

Neither side can conclusively show the other side as wrong other than in theory and doctrine. Both sides look for answers that back their own claims too.

That's a false equivalency. One side is making a claim and the other is saying there is no evidence for that claim. The person making the claim is the one responsible for proving that claim, not the other way around. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the God-Beliver to prove in some way that their belief is rooted in some sort of fact.

Again, as Dawkins points out, you can make a claim about ANYTHING. I can say that there is a giraffe that speaks English and wears a tie and lives in outer space. Just because you can't DISPROVE my claim doesn't mean that both sides are on the same level. The probability of that giraffe's existence is so extremely low that it is safe to say that it most likely doesn't exist. The same kind of argument can be made for God.

But as you can see, just because neither side can "prove" an argument doesn't mean that they are on the same footing in any way, shape, or form.

Neither side can conclusively show the other side as wrong other than in theory and doctrine. Both sides look for answers that back their own claims too.

That's a false equivalency. One side is making a claim and the other is saying there is no evidence for that claim. The person making the claim is the one responsible for proving that claim, not the other way around. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the God-Beliver to prove in some way that their belief is rooted in some sort of fact.

Again, as Dawkins points out, you can make a claim about ANYTHING. I can say that there is a giraffe that speaks English and wears a tie and lives in outer space. Just because you can't DISPROVE my claim doesn't mean that both sides are on the same level. The probability of that giraffe's existence is so extremely low that it is safe to say that it most likely doesn't exist. The same kind of argument can be made for God.

Exactly! Bertrand Russell used the same kind of reasoning, except his example was of an invisible tea-cup floating around Mars

Neither side can conclusively show the other side as wrong other than in theory and doctrine. Both sides look for answers that back their own claims too.

That's a false equivalency. One side is making a claim and the other is saying there is no evidence for that claim. The person making the claim is the one responsible for proving that claim, not the other way around. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the God-Beliver to prove in some way that their belief is rooted in some sort of fact.

Again, as Dawkins points out, you can make a claim about ANYTHING. I can say that there is a giraffe that speaks English and wears a tie and lives in outer space. Just because you can't DISPROVE my claim doesn't mean that both sides are on the same level. The probability of that giraffe's existence is so extremely low that it is safe to say that it most likely doesn't exist. The same kind of argument can be made for God.

Exactly! Bertrand Russell used the same kind of reasoning, except his example was of an invisible tea-cup floating around Mars

Neither side can conclusively show the other side as wrong other than in theory and doctrine. Both sides look for answers that back their own claims too.

That's a false equivalency. One side is making a claim and the other is saying there is no evidence for that claim. The person making the claim is the one responsible for proving that claim, not the other way around. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the God-Beliver to prove in some way that their belief is rooted in some sort of fact.

Again, as Dawkins points out, you can make a claim about ANYTHING. I can say that there is a giraffe that speaks English and wears a tie and lives in outer space. Just because you can't DISPROVE my claim doesn't mean that both sides are on the same level. The probability of that giraffe's existence is so extremely low that it is safe to say that it most likely doesn't exist. The same kind of argument can be made for God.

Exactly! Bertrand Russell used the same kind of reasoning, except his example was of an invisible tea-cup floating around Mars

Isn't that what he calls the Celestial Teapot theory or something?

Haha, I know I've seen it called that, but I'm not sure if he came up with the name itself.

Neither side can conclusively show the other side as wrong other than in theory and doctrine. Both sides look for answers that back their own claims too.

That's a false equivalency. One side is making a claim and the other is saying there is no evidence for that claim. The person making the claim is the one responsible for proving that claim, not the other way around. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the God-Beliver to prove in some way that their belief is rooted in some sort of fact.

Again, as Dawkins points out, you can make a claim about ANYTHING. I can say that there is a giraffe that speaks English and wears a tie and lives in outer space. Just because you can't DISPROVE my claim doesn't mean that both sides are on the same level. The probability of that giraffe's existence is so extremely low that it is safe to say that it most likely doesn't exist. The same kind of argument can be made for God.

But as you can see, just because neither side can "prove" an argument doesn't mean that they are on the same footing in any way, shape, or form.

Space is infinite though so who knows... Things can't really be proven or disproven on such a matter is all I'm saying, people shouldn't be so smug about things when they really know as little as everyone else. That's the only point I was making.

There is by no means universal agreement on this, nor do I see how it's relevant.

Skoll wrote:

Things can't really be proven or disproven on such a matter is all I'm saying, people shouldn't be so smug about things when they really know as little as everyone else. That's the only point I was making.

You can disprove any faith claim using really simple sentential calculus/propositional logic. How? Just posit the opposite faith claim and draw a contradiction from the two.